Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those hints: it works with any valid token regardless of scope, and it surfaces account identity details (slug, status, owner email). It does not fully expand on the output schema, but that schema is present separately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, then the 'call it first' usage note and output fields follow naturally. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description covers what it does, when to call it, what it accepts (any valid token), and what the response contains. The existing output schema covers the rest, so nothing important is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters and the schema confirms this (empty object). The description usefully clarifies that the token comes from the auth context rather than a parameter, saying 'before this token' and 'any valid token.' That exceeds the baseline for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb 'Identify' and a clear resource ('the account behind this token'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools that handle apartments, availability, and reservations. It also telegraphs the output (slug, status, owner email), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'call it first to confirm the connection.' Since none of the sibling tools overlap with account-identity introspection, no alternative is necessary. This is the standard preflight/health-check invocation pattern.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.